Hello Barry & All,
< What do you mean, "on faith only"? >
Quote from dictionary of the number one definition of faith:
1. Confidense in or dependence on a person,statement,or thing as
TRUSTWORTHY.
 <If these beekeepers went bankrupt from using  treatments on faith only,
are ><they not the ones to blame?>
Beekeepers are adjusting everyday to change in the beekeeping industry. New
words to learn the meaning of. Treatments which worked in the past which now
are not providing control. Many are putting faith in what the *other
beekeeper* is doing. The *domino* effect has wiped out many beekeeping
operations. Each beekeeper has to learn what is going on in his or her hives
if they are to continue beekeeping. The new beekeeper can cntinue to survive
by buying packages each spring but what happens when they call south to
order packages and the operator says the phone number is no longer in
service?
Barry's definition of faith:
<Faith is belief  that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.>
My dictionary lists Barry's difinition as second.
2. belief without certain proof.
To a scientist or a researcher following difinition one or two or Barry's is
a recipe for problems.  The smart beekeeper tests a percentage of his hives
with alternative methods but in my opinion NEVER all your hives.At least not
until you haved proved to yourself the method will work.
" Also BEWARE the advice on varroa control from your biggest competiter on
the store shelves. He might like to see you go out of business!"
(Bob Harrison 2001) My competiter said to kick each hive once in the spring
and twice in the fall to dislodge the varroa mites.
Test doesn't mean criticize or attack.
I agree with Barry completely on this issue. Discussion brings the issue out
in the open for all to examine. Crticize and attack a person or viewpoint
does not help or solve the issue. Only causes hard feelings and drives list
members away from the list when we all need to learn from each other.

> Bob, as long as I've known you, you have always been supportive of
> alternative ideas and methods. I can understand a certain amount of
caution,
> and even skepticism when it comes to new or different ideas (ie FGMO,
> natural cell size, vinegar misting, essential oils, etc).

In my opinion with a little elbow grease and using all of the IPM methods
you might come close to treatment with a 98% chemical control. Coumaphos was
the last 98% control to come out of the old medicene bag. There is no other.
We now have to look harder at  SMR bees and IPM controls. Not something I am
looking forward to.

 Do they really think alternative methods in general
> are really worse?

They are not worse but need to be representated without whitewash. Like
growing a garden without pesticides they are not easy to impliment.

 Look at how many beekeepers, following the 'approved' method, are
> going under.Something seems way out of balance
> here. I think people better look at the log in their own hive before
> pointing out the stick in someone else's.

Barry makes a excellent point. Losses of hives in Missouri to fluvalinate
resistant mites has been 50 to 100% in over half the outfits this spring.
All the beekeepers which cussed Coumaphos last year are swearing by it this
year. As Barry said there were many other possible choices for those
beekeepers but the easiest way was the choice of all I talked to.  Could
Barry be looking farther into the future than most beekeepers?

> > Sadly those Argentine beekeepers are in my and Bill Truesdells opinion
> > risking quite a bit by following on faith only.  According to Junes ABJ
(pg
> > 402)all are not happy with the results they are getting.
> All are not happy with the results they are getting with 'approved'
methods
> either! I'll assume Argentine beekeepers are taking a risk based on all
the
> study and testing done to date.
I am going out on a limb here and say the Argentine beekeepers increased
their number of hives by almost double after the honey  price surge in 1996.
Now the price of bulk  honey in Argintina is less than HALF the price it was
in 1996. A huge amount of honey is sitting unbought in Argentine warehouses
even with the Argentines willing to accept the lowest prices in the world.
Quote June ABJ pg. 402.
"Argentine prices remain at the same level of our previous report-30 cents
per pound "drums excluded."
I believe the Argentines are desperate to cut costs and improve the bottom
line. FGMO seems logical.  I have already said more than I have a right to
say so will be quiet and watch the senario play out.
Enjoyed the post Barry and only wish to discuss and not argue,criticize or
attack.
Your friend,
Bob Harrison